Breaches of Trust

The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic; Joseph Stalin

Unsurprisingly the above quotation, like much else of Comrade Jughashvili’s other work, is something I disagree with profoundly. However it’s a good place to start, as this week I’d like to discuss how personal and corporate morality underpins the concept of individual and collective responsibility.  In sport. In medicine. In life.

If one wished to illustrate the actual existence of the theory of false consciousness, the perfect example would be the seemingly infinite number of tweets ignorantly castigating or blindly defending the criminal conduct of recently unemployed former sunderland player Adam Johnson, while at the same time remaining blithely oblivious to both the impact on the child victim of Johnson’s criminal behaviour and, of greater significance on a societal scale, the most outrageous medical fiasco since Leslie Ash had her collagen implants. In the latter instance I’m not talking about the seedy, devious, amoral conduct of disgraced psychiatrist and textbook sociopath Adam Osborne, brother of vile Nietzschean narcissist George, but about the contemptible, loathsome Jeremy Hunt’s decision to impose a contract on junior doctors that will see them earn less per hour than shelf stackers in supermarkets. The very fact that thousands of supporters of Newcastle United and sunderland seemed so utterly disengaged by this shameful act of brutal, Tory treachery towards some of the best qualified and most committed NHS employees, while instead expending their boundless energy and miniscule wit on an endless tirade of accusation and counter accusation, under the pretence of adopting the moral high ground, has the effect of sickening me yet further from all aspects of the professional game.

What are these people trying to achieve? Do they not know how unacceptable it is to use Johnson’s guilty plea, on the back of prior repeated claims of innocence, as a way of casting doubt on his denial that his goal celebration in last October’s derby was intended to mock the deaths of John Alder and Liam Sweeney? The zeal with which they seek to retrospectively ascribe motives to Johnson’s conduct on the field of play, on the basis of his response to criminal charges, is at best fanciful nonsense and at worst duplicitous belligerence. However, it seems that the first casualty of law is always the truth.

The vast majority of the general public’s ignorance of the English legal system is neither surprising, nor accidental. Capitalism operates in such a way that ordinary people are denied access to adequate information as to how the state apparatus operates, while at the same time the hegemony of the ruling elite ensures the working class are conditioned to feel that the intricate methodologies and myriad techniques of social control are beyond their ken and consequently nothing to do with “the likes of us.” Witness the fact that when actor William Roache was found not guilty of a series of historic sexual abuse allegations, the preferred phraseology in newspapers and among the populace was that he had “got off” with it, hinting at a cloud of suspicion that due legal process had done nothing to dissipate, despite the fact he left the court an entirely innocent man. Therefore it is of no surprise to me that a staggering amount of ill-informed, mendacious and dangerously prejudicial hot air has been exhaled as regards Adam Johnson’s situation. The facts are these; Johnson has pleaded guilty to two charges: grooming and sexual activity with a minor. He is pleading not guilty to two further charges of sexual activity with a minor. That is truth. That is reality.

It appears to me that such a transparent state of affairs simply cannot or will not be grasped by those who seek to make their mouths go about the case. Another fact is that many people just don’t understand how the law works; Johnson hasn’t been “done by the coppers.” He was simply arrested and questioned by them. The Crown Prosecution Service received a file from Durham Constabulary and it was they who framed the actual charges brought against him. The way trials operate is that the prosecution outlines their case first, which is where the prurient, headline-grabbing, sensational tabloid content tends to come from. After this the defence either seeks to rebut the prosecution case, when a defendant pleads not guilty, or mitigates the offence(s) admitted, in the case of a guilty plea. The Judge summarises both cases, then the jury retire to decide whether the defendant’s guilt has been proved “beyond reasonable doubt.” If a guilty verdict is reached, the Judge will pass sentence based on a number of factors, including minimum or maximum tariff for the offences, previous character and mitigating or incriminating factors.

Commenting on a live case, such as the Johnson one, is fraught with danger. Any reference to something that could prejudice the case, or is sub judice, may result in the miscreant being prosecuted for contempt of court. Therefore, I intend to say little or nothing about the details of the case, especially as the trial is on-going. What I will say is that the facts that were revealed on the first day of proceedings show Johnson in the worst light possible. Undoubtedly his behaviour has been sordid, predatory, vile, loathsome, criminal and utterly unacceptable in any level of society. His lack of insight into the probable results of his conduct, for all parties directly or indirectly involved, shows either breath taking arrogance or crass stupidity. As he is a footballer, preserved in a state of permanent adolescence: cosseted, pampered and indulged from the moment his natural talent was rewarded with a professional contract, I am prepared to give credence to such an explanation, though it is neither a defence nor a reason for mitigation.

Johnson’s victim, aged 15 years and 2 months when the incidents happened, and his partner, pregnant with their child, who Johnson artlessly described as “class” after seeing a photo of his new born, have both been badly wronged by him. The abused child is the greater victim for innumerable reasons, legal and emotional, while his partner was traduced by the base, amoral conduct of a sexual predator, albeit a particularly stupid one who needed Google to discover what the age of consent in this country actually is.

With his lack of judgement, inability to accept his wrongdoing and defensive response to allegations, investigations and proceedings, Johnson appears cast from the same base metal as the kind of weak and inadequate men outwitted by the likes of Dark Justice in Channel 5 fly on the wall documentaries about internet groomers. The difference being Johnson was not a vulnerably housed career criminal with a borderline sub normal IQ and a history of substance abuse, but an international footballer earning a reputed £60,000 per week. Hopefully his sporting achievements and wealth will not insulate him from justice.

This week has also seen the professional disintegration and personal disgrace of another Adam; the brother of the inexpressibly loathsome George Osborne. Dr Osborne, whose title is now a historical relic rather than a signifier of his employment status has been struck off by the GMC after being found unfit to practise. The case against him was that he embarked in a relationship with a patient from his private psychiatric practice; a vulnerable, mentally ill woman under Osborne’s care, was groomed, seduced, indulged, discarded, emotionally blackmailed and eventually physically threatened by a man who is as much a disgrace to his profession as Adam Johnson. Osborne’s conduct caused this poor, troubled, abused, vulnerable woman to attempt suicide in the wake of a barrage of abusive, oppressive emails. It is a moot point whether Johnson’s crime is of greater magnitude, because of the age of his victim, rather than Osborne’s; what is undeniable is the repugnance of both their conduct. Selfish, self-gratifying, self-justifying, arrogant narcissists, who feel their power, status and wealth puts them above both criminal and moral law; one essential difference being that Johnson may lose his liberty, while Osborne will only lose his job. Certainly George’s brother hasn’t got the family’s good name to worry about anyway.

It is to be hoped that in the furore over Johnson, Osborne’s grotesquely amoral conduct has not slipped under the radar. Perhaps the most repugnant detail in this case is that it isn’t the first time he’s been caught. In 2010, while still training as a doctor, Osborne stole and forged prescriptions for “an escort,” who was a cocaine addict. This woman was involved in a lengthy sexual relationship with the good doctor, which had a financial basis.  It seems an act of unimaginable naiveté for the GMC to allow Osborne to return to medicine after the 2010 incident. However, they have seen the error of their ways and decided to act decisively at last.  Of course, their initial error was not visible to the public; in contrast, the conduct of sunderland FC in the Johnson case was explicit from the get go and the club must come under scrutiny as regards the probity of their handling of the whole situation.

The allegations against Johnson concern the period December 2015 to February 2015; the police investigation against him began in February 2015, at which point he was suspended by the club. In every job in the public sector, or where a person would have any access to or contact with children or vulnerable adults, it is almost certain the person under investigation would be suspended from work on full pay “without prejudice.”  It seemed this would also be the case when sunderland acted. However, with investigations still continuing, Johnson’s suspension was revoked and he started to play for the club, despite subsequently being charged with 4 offences in March 2015. It has therefore taken 10 months to come to court and sunderland’s response, the day after Johnson’s guilty plea and 5 days after he scored for the club away to Liverpool, was to sack him. Having got the better of the pub side currently masquerading as Manchester United, perhaps the club wish they had active decisively a while back. The terse statement issued by sunderland on Thursday stated that they would be making “no further comment” on the case. This simply isn’t good enough.

As far as I see it, the crux of the matter is this; did Johnson adopt a Machiavellian persona and deny the allegations point blank to club officials? If so, he successfully stonewalled any suspicions they may have had for almost a year, before pulling the rug from under their feet by pleading guilty, to his employer’s utter disbelief, at which point the club responded with admirable alacrity and sacked Johnson.  Well, it’s possible I suppose. If that is the case, the blame falls solely on the shoulders of Johnson, which means the club, who supported him through this whole ordeal, have been betrayed.

I’m sure sunderland fans fervently hope this is the case, as the alterative interpretation is troublesome to contemplate.  I’m speculating now, but was this what actually happened? When carpeted by club officials last February, a shamefaced Johnson holds his hands up to the on-line and text grooming which led to the sordid tryst in his Range Rover, behind the Happy Valley Cantonese take away in Station Town, but claims that’s as far as any relationship went. The club respond appropriately by sending him home. However his suspension coincides with Poyet’s sacking and the annual Mackem Houdini act (first patented in 1981 by Colin West) under a new manager. In this case Dick Advocaat, who apparently prized Premiership largesse over moral conduct by bringing Johnson back into the first team, while the club cloak this decision under an amalgam of a vague “innocent until proven guilty” statement and hints that contractually they have to allow him to return to work. Regards of Johnson’s individual contract of employment, this is bollocks; as John Harvey Jones said a dozen or so years back, the great thing about British employment laws are that they make it the easiest place in the EU to sack workers.

If sunderland had sacked Johnson immediately the accusations had surfaced, it would have been premature. However, after he was charged, bearing in mind the legal checks and balances that take place before that point, it would have been both reasonable (in the legal sense) and understandable. Any appeal by Johnson to an employment tribunal, or civil action against sunderland, would obviously have been stayed until after the conclusion of criminal proceedings. Recent revelations should hint at what the outcome of any appeal by Johnson would have been. The club could have saved the thick end of £4 million quid in wages if they’d given him the boot in early 2015,  Therefore to me, it simply isn’t credible that the club were completely in the dark about Johnson’s understanding, awareness and acceptance of his offending or his intention to plead guilty. I think sunderland AFC need to recognise the validity of such an interpretation and make a considerably more detailed explanation, perhaps an auto da fe, once the trial is over. Though I certainly feel it wouldn’t be a matter for retrospective punishment, a la Juventus, if corporate malfeasance is unearthed.

To clarify, Newcastle United have no right to the moral high ground after the signings of Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer, both by Sir Bobby Robson let us not forget; however their offences were in the past and both of them had been dealt with by the courts before they arrived on Tyneside. If the worst case scenario plays out for sunderland, it will appear that they embarked on a Faustian pact with a self-confessed child sex offender, hoping to retain their Premier League status. They chose to pursue cash rather than do what is right. To me, that would be morally unforgivable, but something the club would have to address themselves. Of course neither explanation can be proven without further comment from the club, which seems to be a total non-starter.

In the Channel 4 adaptation of David Peace’s Red Riding, Sean Bean playing the corrupt property developer John Dawson alludes to his involvement in a series of abductions and murders of young schoolgirls being the result of “a private weakness.” The same explanation could be used for the abhorrent conduct of Adam Johnson and Adam Osborne. However, while recognising the appalling effects on the victims of their conduct, I would feel their actions were less destructive than Jeremy Hunt’s ideological war against the BMA or, if it is proven to be the case, the corporate shame that would be the responsibility of sunderland’s role in the Johnson case.

Out of respect for the victim and her family, I would fervently hope the matter is allowed to fade away as soon as Johnson receives his punishment. Sadly, this will not be the case with the hot heads and air heads of social media engaging in a grammatically suspect tedious argument of insidious intent.

At the end of the day, in terms of evil done and the pernicious effects of their actions on society as a whole, Boris Johnson is worse than Adam Johnson and George Osborne wipes the floor with his younger brother, while James Naughtie got it right when he mispronounced Jeremy Hunt’s name.